From: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: subversion vs cvs |
Date: | 2004-03-24 19:40:41 |
Message-ID: | 4061E439.2070401@zara.6.isreserved.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> I've had plenty of pain with cvs in terms of directories not being
> first-class etc .. but I don't really contribute to pgsql so you guys
> probably don't have the same experience.
>
> I was just curious as it looks like eventually subversion (or arch :-)
> will be an alternative to cvs.
Eventually it (either subversion, or arch, or something else) will. You
just have to be patient :-) The movement will be very slow, we'll
probably see Apache 1.3.x disappear first before we see CVS disappear.
It _is_ frustrating to have to use something new, especially something
so frequently used like source control tool.
--
dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anony Mous | 2004-03-24 19:42:43 | pg_dump "what if?" |
Previous Message | Peter Lang | 2004-03-24 18:59:21 | pg_dump "what if?" |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 19:45:26 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-03-24 18:53:07 | LOOK - KITTENS! (was Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept) |